According to an Oshkosh Northwestern report, "The Christmas Box Angel statue proposed for Menominee Park would be the first of its kind on public land in the state of Wisconsin." The Madison based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) plans to lead an effort to prevent the statue from being placed in the park, arguing that such placement would represent unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. Last night Mayor Bill Castle said the statue placement is a "done deal" and challenged the FFRF to take the city to court.Would placing the statue in a public park be unconstitutional? FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor calls angels "Biblical creatures," but they are found in many religions. Conversely, bereaved Oshkosh parent Sharon Fisher, who is organizing the fundraising drive to place the statue in the park as a source of comfort for parents who have lost children, told the Oshkosh Common Council (as quoted in the Oshkosh Northwestern) that "How it is looked at and interpreted comes from one's own mind, and we cannot control how people think. If you want it to be a religious symbol, then you can see it as such."
I think a Wisconsin Court trying to resolve this controversy would be most concerned with Article I, section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution:
"The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries."
If the Christmas Box Angel statue is in fact a religious symbol, then it would appear to be a violation of the Wisconsin Constitution to place it in a taxpayer supported public park.
But in 2006 are angels necessarily religious symbols? Author Richard Paul Evans, on whose work the statue is based, does not appear to shroud its meaning in Christian terms even though it is called the "Christmas Box" angel. Pop songs with angel themes by singers like Jessica Simpson and Madonna are enjoyed mostly by secular audiences--you could probably play them on your boom box in a public park and no one would much mind. Meanwhile at websites like Amazon.com can be purchaed angel jewelry without any overt religious trappings. Perhaps it is a sad commentary on our hyper-consumer culture, but angels today are really just one more thing to be sold as a fashion statement--or as a source of comfort to grieving parents ($12,500 for the statue + up to another $6,000 for a foundation).
I do teach a course on the First Amendment, but the establishment of religion clause is admittedly not the area I typically focus on. I'd be interested in hearing what others think about this topic.
20 comments:
Tony,
If I read your post correctly, the statue is only unconstitutional if the area it sits on is meant to be a place to worship God or worship in general. I believe the statue is meant to be a place to grieve and remember something sad in a nice place. It is meant to be a memorial, not a worship site, and thus not unconstitutional according to the Article you cited.
Angel figures were part of mythologies and folktales long before the figures were made religious. I realize Some Christians may think they have the corner on the market for angels, but the Greek figure Eros was a man with wings and appeared in myth long before the birth of Christianity. Guardian spirits are part of many culture myths dating back thousands of years.
All that aside, regardless of the statue's name or possible connotation, it is meant to be a memorial. As a mother who experienced two miscarriages before having my children, I would like a place to go to grieve and remember. I don't have graves to go to. I have no pictures or momentos. I have the memories of the love I had for those children.
If the statue is moved to the grounds of a hospital or is replaced with abstract art, I will never visit it. I do not need the reminder of the emergency surgery that removed my dead child. I think the statue belongs in a park surrounded by nature and beauty.
As far as religious connotation, I sincerely hope those opposed to the statue never read the Constitution or say the
Pledge of Allegience, both have God in them. I also hope they have abandoned all currency displaying "In God We Trust." I sincerely hope "God Damn" is not in there vocabulary while we're at it. Seems silly when you takes things too far, doesn't it?
You can't have it both ways, Michelle. First to say that because Christianity stole symbols from other religious traditions means that it is not Christian imagery.
That argument is phony, because angels have been part of Christian iconography for thousands of years. Atheists don't run around with angels hanging from their rear-view mirrors.
Secondly, your true argument comes through in the end. You accept that the angel is a religious symbol and then say "so, What!" Christians have shoved their religion into public discourse in pledge (God added in the 1950s) and the money ('in god we trust added 1957), so now you can shove it into the parks.
So which is it--this is not a religious symbol (wink, wink!) or it is a religious symbol which Christians should be allowed to shove down non-believers' throats???
I'm sorry you have lost a child, but why does violating the constitution make you feel better?
Michelle,
I don't think the Constitution has the word "God" in it. (I think it has the word "Lord" in it as in "Year of our Lord 1787," but they seem to have scrupulously kept religious references out of the body of the text.).
I also don't think the language of the Wisconsin Constitution is concerned only with worship sites--it is concerned with government "showing preference" to religions. Placing a religious symbol in a taxpayer funded public park would be an example of showing preference, if I understand the law correctly.
I do think if this does go to Court a decision will turn on whether or not angels really are "religious symbols." I think good arguments can be made either way. Is this something worth spending possibily years in court over? Perhaps the money that would be used for such a case could be better used to set up a fund to help parents who may be in financial distress due to the death of a child. Just a suggestion.
Thanks for starting the discussion. --Tony
I hope we can keep this discussion civil; too often issues about something as personal and important as spirituality become, well...words and attatcks that people like Jesus, Buddha, et al. would probably quickly condemn.
I think Michelle inadvertantly, perhaps, brings up two other arguments to be thrown into the mix. While suggesting that angels were "around" before the birth of Christianity, I don't think the general public understanding of them takes that into consideration. If I wanted to establsih a memorial in a public park with a statue of, say, the Greek goddess Hectate (who was often called up by pregant women) and was able to secure funding for it, would the same people who are adamant about the angel defend that choice? Obviously, I don't have a crystal ball that works, but my guess is that these same people would say "absolutely not!" IMHO, it seems that when we discuss placing religious symbols in public spaces, it has to those of the "correct" God.
Secondly, if one is surrounded in a park with "nature and beauty", why isn't that enough? I understand the need for a focus point, but why wouldn't another tree or bench be enough?
Those of us who try to practice tolerance of all religions and spirituality and opinions can get really tired of being the bad guys. And, often, we are demonized merely beacuse we don't believe what others believe.
Perhaps I am speaking out of both sides of my mouth when I say that if this wasn't part of a national continued attack on freedom from religion, one box angel may not be a big deal. But, when we have constant attenpts to put the ten commandments in courthouses, to write discrimination based on right-wing relgious opionions into the federal and state Constitutions, and to re-introduce prayer in public schools, it becomes part of a much larger issue.
Kay
My husband just read the most recent posts with me and we have a solution. How about a referendum to let the taxpayers who supposedly are going to have this symbol of religion "shoved down their throats" decide? I think if you asked the very taxpayers naysayers are supposedly protecting, you would hear a different answer. BTW we are taxpayers too and would be happy to donate what we can to the cost of the statue.
Don't get me wrong, I can see the other side of the issue. I don't think religion should be pressed upon anyone, but I disagree that this is a religious issue. Besides, I don't think anything can be completely sanitized from religion or anti-religion. EVERYONE uses our parks and EVERYONE can make a decision for or against going to a particular location within a particular park.
Anonymous, Christians don't have the corner on the market for angels, they got it from Judiasm which believed in them for thousands of years before Christianity. My husband is Catholic and doesn't have an Angel anywhere in his vehicle or my vehicle.
Reread my post, I think there is the POSSIBLE religious connotation depending on reference used. However, angels are marketed everywhere from the Vatican to Fredericks of Hollywood. How religious is that? I think the connotation can be taken however someone wishes as is EVERYONE'S right. BTW, are the same people railing about this going to demand to be buried in a nonsecular cemetary or put in their will that all religious icons should be removed before their burial to protect their rights? What about my rights? The line between the two gets fuzzy, doesn't it?
"In God We Trust" first appeared on the 2 cent piece in 1864 by act of Congress. "Under God" was added by Dwight D. Eisenhower on Flag Day in 1954.
As for your last comment, thank you for your sympathy for the loss of my first two children. I do not feel the MEMORIAL is a violation of the Constitution. If you have noticed, the Constitution is open to interpretation or we would not need a Supreme Court.
I think in this case, we will have to agree to disagree and let a higher power (pardon the pun) decide.
1. If we had a referendum for everything that the Montes, Esslinger et al say we ought to put to referendum, the city might as well give up the budget process entirely and just put all of Oshkosh's revenue into referendums.
2. You're all ignoring the other can of worms about the point at which life begins....
I agree that whether an angel is a religous or commercial symbol these days is a fine line, but let's face it--when the underlying purpose of the angel is mourning/spirituality, I think we can all safely assume that said angel is meant to be religious. The desire to erect this staute probably stems from motivations beyond rememberance of children. It's probably designed to open up the exact dialouge we've opened up.
all this fuss for a statue of me(just kidding!!) and yet we cannot seem to get out and vote about more important issues(such as our representatives who make our descisions for us and then turn around and do stupid things that make us angry...). if you are really opinionated, then get out there say something! there's no sense in keeping it!
let the referendum begin!!
I dont' think anyone who participates in this blog fails to get out and vote/make his/her voice heard.
Here's a little more stinky fish for the pot. How is it that we as a city presently allow weddings to occur in the public parks? Now I realize that there are those"weddings" that are not religious as it were. However, there ARE those that have actual clergy in attendance and performing the vows. Yet not a single yelp from the freedom of religious people...Why? What if you changed the name of the statue, (because if the truth be told that is the real problem, not an angel) what if you called it GRACE:or a state of grace, A place dedicated to (G)rowth, (R)eflection (A)dmire (C)ontemplete (E)nrich, ones sole and renew the spirit?
Would this still be found offensive? I think if we all look hard enough we CAN find things to be offended by. Could this work?
Tonight Cheryl Hentz and I interviewed Common Council candidate Dennis McHugh and we asked him about this subject. I thought he was going to take Bill Castle's position, but much to my surprise he did not.
McHugh said that the major problem with placing the angel statue in the park is that it then becomes impossible to say no to any other organization that wants to put something there. Suppose Mothers Against Drunk Driving, for example, wanted to place a memorial for those killed by reckless drivers in the park; a place for relatives and friends of the dead to grieve, if you will. Whether the MADD Memorial was religious or secular, how could we say no after saying yes to the Compassionate Friends (I think that's their name) who want to place the angel in the park?
I think McHugh's argument is one the city officials should take seriously. Are we saying that anyone who can raise $20,000 for a park statue can place it there as long as "the majority" of citizens seem to be okay with it? Or as long as the Common Council rubber stamps it?
Hey Anonymous 7:19,
"...but let's face it--when the underlying purpose of the angel is mourning/spirituality..."
1. Are you saying Mourning is strictly religious? Athiests don't mourn?
2. When did Esslinger become part of this discussion?
3. The movement for this memorial was started by grieving parents who are suffering more than the loss of their child. It was meant only as a memorial for parents. There are no other motivations, especially not having to do with your second point.
4. Isn't the statue to be paid for with donations, not tax dollars?
Anonymous 8:26, I agree with you completely.
The constitution is NOT about majority rules so the referendum idea is a BAD one. The constitution is about protecting individual rights and NOT allowing the government to promote religion.
Why not have a statue of a child if grieving mothers need a symbol? I too question the real motives of those who want this in a PUBLIC park.
If it is truly just to give grieving mothers who have lost a child a symbol to look at when remembering then I think a statute of a child is the perfect solution.
I think the angel figure is an innocuous image. I don't find angels as strictly religious symbols. However, I would also be happy with a statue of a child.
I still don't see in the constitution where an angel statue memorializing children is unconstitutional. You would have to show that this statue is strictly religious and intends the site to become a place of worship. Saying it is unconstitutional and it actually being so are two different things. Apparently I see the interpretation of what Tony cited a little differently.
Dennis McHugh has a point about others potentially coming forward for similar. I would have to argue, let them and decide based on the merrits of their arguments. We find ways to say no to one union after saying yes to another, or no to one contractor after saying yes to another. I can still say no to one of my children after saying yes to another. Saying no will not stop anyone from coming forward for similar.
While I would still advocate for a statue of a child, I have to ask something again and maybe someone from Freedom From Religion can answer. Where do your rights end and mine begin?
This isn't so much about your rights and mine, it is about the constitutions prohibition of the state promoting religion. I think a reasonable person sees an angel as a religious symbol if you put a religious symbol in a PUBLIC park, you are in effect promoting religion. You can play word games all you want but an angel is a religious symbol. Are you really going to say Christmas is NOT a religious holiday because it is ALSO a secular one?
Would you use your same arguement of look away, don't go to that part of the park etc.. if the statute were of naked teenagers making love? I think not...I'm pretty sure there would be an outcry that such a statute offends. The constitution has its protections, they should be respected, not overruled by "majority vote".
"Christmas" is part of the name of the statue. It has nothing to do with the holiday, secular or otherwise.
You are right about the constitutional "prohibition of the state promoting religion." However, this is not a case of anyone promoting religion. No one except those opposing the statue are bringing religion into the equation. It is about a group of gieving parents privately funding a memorial for anyone in the public to visit or not visit.
If you insist on using that logic, then I guess the memorial tank at the park across from West is promoting militarization and advocates war and mandatory service as it memorializes a war that used the draft to fill ranks. Isn't that unconstitutional? That tank is an invasion of my rights and beliefs and needs to be removed as it is in a park supported by my tax dollars. Same for that memorial in South Park. Hell, lets ban the Lincoln Memorial because its inscriptions include the words "consecrate," "God," "prayers," "Almighty," and "Lord." I do believe that is taxpayer property. Even the Supreme Court Building has depictions of Confucious and Moses. "LET'S MARCH ON WASHINGTON!!! Anonymous 11:02, I'll meet you there.
For others with half a brain or more still working, The First Amendment contains the Establishment Clause which prohibits the government from creating an official or established church, preferring one religion over another, or benefiting believers instead of nonbelievers. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with the expression of religious beliefs. No one is creating religion or advocating belief over nonbelief in the case of the statue.
As far as State Law: check King v. Village of Waunakee, Lunch v. Donnelly, Allegheny County v Pittsburg ACLU, as long as no tax dollars are used to procure the staute and any potential religious connotation is not compulsary, it is not unconstitutional.
I guess we will find out if it is unconstitutional after the lawsuit is over.
Tony, you're funny but not in a comical way. What good are you doing for society? Is this quest of the extreme left to kill religion in the public square doing one bit of good for anyone except for like minded athiests? I understand and accept the idea that government shouldn't directly promote a particular religion. But clowns like you take it too far. There is a saying I believe you should learn to understand, "everything in Moderation" You sit up on your high horse at the university spewing your ultra liberal agenda throughout your classes and it makes me sick. Quit trying to turn the U.S into Europe. When all is said and done, when you're lying in your deathbed, will you see yourself as having helped a single other human being for the better in this life? Your ideology is weak and self-serving. I could go on and on citing my evidence for your faults, but I believe people like you represent the decay of humanity. You are a perfect example of what the philosopher Ann Rand would call an "altruist"
Yeah! Not to mention what Ann Rand's sister Ayn would say about that jerk!
Wow, what got into UW Student??? I was actually surprised that Tony didn't come right out and say "this is wrong" from my reading of his posts, he doesn't really seem to have taken a stand one way or the other. So hey UW student, relax.
I am very surprised no one has answered the post with case law citations. I would think if Freedom from Religion had a leg to stand on, they would be able to refute this information. Maybe they think by bullying local governments, they can get what they want easier. Why not make a real name for yourselves and go after the big guys in Washington who pour tax dollars into national memorials every year? Maybe because you know you do not have a legal leg to stand on. The claim to separation of church and state can be interpreted any number of ways as was in the design of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Interpretation allows those documents to change with society and not bind society to one way of thinking.
Post a Comment